HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-24-PB-min
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2008
A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building
was called to order at 8:05 a.m. by Chairman Hornig with members Canale, Manz and Zurlo and planning
staff McCall-Taylor, and Henry present. Mr. Galaitsis was absent. Also in attendance from the Town
were Mr. Carl Valente, Town Manager, Susan Yanofsky, Economic Development Officer, and the Board
of Selectmen – Mr. Burnell, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kelley, Ms. Krieger and Mr. Manz.
Those present from the commercial community were Howard Smith, 476 Bedford St; Kevin Duffy, 25,
40 & 45 Hartwell; John O'Gorman, 113 Hartwell; Dennis McCarthy, architect for 101 Hartwell, Joseph
"Skip" Coppola, AMB Property Corporation, 101 Hartwell; Mike Cantalupa, Boston Properties with 3
properties on Hartwell; Tom Andrews, Alexandria Properties, 4 properties in area; and Ed Grant, local
attorney.
***************************COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT*****************************
Mr. Hornig began by thanking the members of the development community for coming to the meeting.
He then gave a general overview of Town Meeting’s charge to the Planning Board and the job ahead. He
said that redevelopment requires the cooperation of the landowners, as the Board can only do the zoning.
All the Board members have ideas on what they would like to see happen for economic development but
no decisions have been made. They are reaching out to the development community to hear their ideas
and wishes. There was a map of the zoning study area outlining those parcels for which the zoning may
be changed. Mr. Hornig said everything is on the table and went over the topic list that the Board had
developed. The time line for getting to 2009 Town Meeting was laid out and described as very aggressive.
Mr. Cantalupa asked why the aggressive timeline. Mr. Hornig said they had heard from Town Meeting
for the need to increase tax revenue. Mr. Zurlo said they would be fine-tuning the revenue objectives
over the year. Ms. Manz said that the current FAR was in fact a moratorium on development and they
wanted to open the door a bit.
Mr. Smith asked about the future of the old dump. Mr. Hornig said it was being used pretty intensely
now and he was not aware of any other immediate plans for it. Mr. Canale asked if there were any ideas
on its use that would foster development.
Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 24, 2008
Mr. Cantalupa observed that if the objective is to increase tax revenue, lot assemblage might be needed.
He wondered what time horizon was the town looking at. Mr. Canale said they realized that returns may
not be immediate, but they were looking at the longer plan. They need to decide what they want to see in
ten years, and then make a plan to get there. Mr. Zurlo said that the zoning he was thinking about would
not require assemblage.
Mr. Coppola urged an increase in the FAR sooner rather than later. They have a building for which they
can’t wait until May to know if there will be a higher FAR. If they get a tenant prior to then, they will
simply put on a new coat of paint and re-lease at a lower rate. The opportunity for expansion and
increased tax revenues will be lost. He noted that they are green developers.
Ms. Manz said it would be helpful to hear what they might envision along Hartwell. Mr. O’Gorman asked
if there were anywhere the Board wouldn’t go, and Mr. Canale said not a retail mall but other uses would
be considered. He said he was looking at the impact of a .35 FAR or a .9 FAR. Mr. Hornig said that as a
board they had no opinion as to where they were going except for having green development and
aggressive traffic management. He also didn’t see residential use in the area.
Mr. O’Gorman asked if they were considering a hard cap or two-tier system with by-right and then by
special permit. He noted Waltham uses a two-tier system. Mr. Hornig said it is likely to be a two-tier
system. Mr. O’Gorman then asked what aggressive traffic management meant. Mr. Hornig said when
they met with the neighbors they were told that traffic was the top issue, and it was also number two and
number three. Mr. Canale said more traffic demand management would allow more FAR and he wanted
a transparent and predictable process.
Mr. Smith asked about past talk of having a direct entrance onto Hartwell from Route 128 and was told
that it had never gotten past the sketch level. Mr. Canale noted that the redevelopment of the Polaroid site
in Waltham included a $40 million redesign of the intersection that was being funded by the developer.
The federal and state governments would not pay for it and he doubted they would pay for any similar
improvements here either. However, if any of the landowners were willing to pay for such
improvements, he urged them to let him know. Mr. Hornig said they had been discussing infrastructure
improvements costing from $1 million to $10 million, and ranging from sidewalks to road widening, but
nothing like a new intersection or a widening of Route 128.
Mr. Cantalupa said the primary incentive is density. Waltham zoning allows three times the density.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 24, 2008 Page 3
Redevelopment requires taking a property out of the income stream, so is not attractive for recent
purchases. It is not attractive to redevelop unless it can be dense. A mixed use is a new concept for the
northeast. Ancillary retail uses won’t be successful without significant third party customers to make a go
of it and generate revenue from the space. He thought allowing 20 to 25 percent other uses would be
attractive. He said that Lexington is a ‘tweener market and will remain such without significant change.
He could see Hartwell with 6-story office buildings; it has the potential of being a very walkable street
with the addition of sidewalks.
Mr. Andrews said Alexandria has four properties, relatively recent purchases. Numbers 29 and 35 are at
.32 and .35 FAR, while 44 is mostly wetlands and has a low FAR. 60 Westview is about .25 FAR and is
converting from office manufacturing to lab. He could see three to four story lab/office buildings on the
one side of Hartwell but the other side has wetland constraints. He doesn’t see a lot of redevelopment, as
it would require taking properties out of the income stream. There is a challenge in fitting surface
parking.
Mr. Cantalupa said you need to see what site will take you to what density. Mr. Henry asked if there was
a particular floor template, a square footage per employee, or a desired parking ratio that they would like
to see. He told the developers they had information the Board needs to make decisions. Mr. Canale
asked what density would justify structured parking. Mr. O’Gorman said structured parking is just
overhead as they can’t charge for it in the suburbs. Mr. Horning asked what would they build if there
were no FAR, setbacks, etc? Mr. O’Gorman said it was subject to the market. If they are looking for
wholesale reinvestment they need to look at density. Mr. Duffy said that .4 FAR by right is very
attractive and there is limited opportunity in Waltham for such. He said in Burlington the ZBA can
increase the FAR from .15 to .56 and that is with surface parking.
Ms. Manz asked how they found the existing process with the Town for planned commercial
developments. Mr. Duffy said that at 25 Hartwell Avenue when they added 8,000 square feet a few years
ago, they had to go through the ZBA and Conservation Commission and they found it worthwhile. He
noted that Lexington was alone in its definition of developable area that excludes wetlands.
Mr. Cantalupa said when you look at lots, it’s an order of magnitude. In Waltham the largest you see is
350,000 square feet and six stories and he doesn’t see any bigger than that happening in Lexington. Four
spaces per 1,000 square feet seems to be the magic number for parking, although some tenants want 6 per
1,000 sq. ft. He thought 3.5-4/1,000 was workable, using the rentable area. Mr. Andrews said 3/1,000
Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 24, 2008
works for lab space.
He then said the mix won’t be different. This is not a core office area; he sees it more like Hayden
Avenue with more 1 to 2-story labs. He said biotech loves to cluster so it goes to Ledgemont and other
places such as Wiggins in Bedford. Mr. Canale asked what would they visualize as the mix, office or lab?
Mr. Cantalupa say he could see lab growth and thought the high tech market was pretty steady. Mr.
Andrews said defense is still strong but there is less assembly work. Mr. O’Gorman commented on the
avigation easements that are pretty broad, even more restrictive than around Logan. Mr. Henry stated that
the Planning Department had had difficulty getting documentation of these easements and would
appreciate any that the landowners could supply.
Mr. Cantalupa urged the Board to not dismiss the introduction of residential use into the district.
Businesses locate where they can get good labor and employees don’t like to commute. Apartments with
one or two bedrooms would allow a live-work-play development. Developers are looking for flexibility
and don’t like constraints. Mr. Andrews said the Town Meeting process is not nimble and opportunities
can be missed.
Another issue is lot constraints; the transferability of development potential should be considered. Mr.
Canale pointed out that such transfers might allow structured parking. It was also seen as a way to speed
development. Once such a transfer is made among lots, it isn’t feasible to reverse it. Mr. Kelley asked
about the relative value of square footage and whether Lexington land was more valuable. Mr. Cantalupa
said no; Waltham commanded higher rents as did Burlington. Mr. Andrews said that Waltham sat in the
middle of the 128 beltway so could draw from the north, west and south, and there are more amenities
such as hotels and retail. The proximity to Lexington, Concord and Weston was also a plus as those are
towns where the decision makers like to live.
Mr. O’Gorman said that in Waltham there are so many opportunities for growth while in Lexington if a
tenant outgrows their space they would have to move. Also Waltham has been recognized nationally as a
high tech location for the past forty years. Mr. Andrews said that Lexington is a much smaller market and
a large market attracts the strongest tenants who have greater square footage needs. He did feel there was
not much difference between Lexington and Waltham for tenants.
Mr. Canale asked if there was a difference between Hayden and Hartwell and was told that Hayden had
easier access but both had a lack of immediate amenities.
Minutes for the Meeting of June 24, 2008 Page 5
When asked for what the landowners saw as the future of the Hartwell area, they said an FAR of .35 to .4
(Mr. Cantalupa would go higher), two or three restaurants, more flexibility on allowed uses, including the
potential for housing, two to three story lab/office buildings with surface parking. They thought the retail
use would have to draw in neighbors and residents in order to have enough clientele to survive. In the
end, the traffic limitations will cap out the level of development.
Mr. Zurlo asked if the traffic cap out is an impediment to development, or a town cap? Mr. Andrews said
that tenants will look at employees’ access, and if they can’t get there, they will not rent.
When asked how Lexington is seen by developer/landowners, it was noted that Lexington is seen as
tougher than Waltham. However, it is a perception issue and that can be changed. Westwood was cited
as a place that had a far tougher reputation and was able to turn it around.
Mr. Hornig closed the meeting, expressing the Board’s appreciation for the opportunity to meet with
them. There will probably be another outreach in the fall.
On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 a.m.
Wendy Manz, Clerk